2 Different people, at 2 different times, on 2 different mailing lists, spoke about this issue. Here it is, un-edited.
Peter Gilligan was talking on the bodysmith list on January of 2003, and Elena posted to the TCCList in mid Nov. 2004, amazing correspondences in grasp & presentation.
Enjoy … David L.
Hi there David L, Richard B
Sorry I've been busy the
last few days and have been meaning to join in
(since David posted a few
days ago on the 16th saying that it was
my show :-). The pair of you have bounced around lots of ideas and covered
broad swathes of thinking all of it very interesting. I still am a bit pushed
for time just now so I won't try to deal with all of them at the moment.
At 16:41 21/01/2003 -0600,
you wrote:
>These
people will (IMO) have an easier time grasping the issues involved
>since they have a
coherent background to assist them, few of us have taken
>the time like Peter G.
has done to study the Oriental paradigms in such
>depth that they can use
them like an Oriental would.
Well, while I find this very
flattering personally I'd be the first to say
that my current
understanding is still developing and I expect it to
continue to develop. As to
thinking "like an Oriental" I dunno; you'd have
to ask my Chinese and Asian
Indian friends if they would agree.
Since the title of this
thread is "Stuck on Ch'i" I'll just stick to my
understanding/interpretation
of this paradigm. I'll pick it up from my
previous post that David L
has recently re-posted.
Taiji, I take to be a
philosophical construct or statement about the nature
of the reality in which we
find ourselves. Everything in the Universe can
be reduced to Taiji. In a
way similar to the WS perspective that
*everything* can be reduced
to fundamental particles. I note that these
"particles" are
not in the WS paradigm solid "things" but rather "wavicles"
(which tries to summarise
the wave/particle duality). These "wavicles" are
packets or knots of energy
so compacted that they seem to behave
occasionally as if they were
solid "bits". Ultimately the WS paradigm seems
to me to be saying that the
most fundamental underlying source of
everything is energy -
either condensed when it is matter or dispersed when
it is perceived as more
conventional energy. So my understanding of current
WS thinking is that the
Universe is made up of waves - though
what is
"waving" is at
this time debatable.
Similarly my understanding
of the Taiji paradigm is that it too reduces the
manifest phenomena of the
Universe to energy "waving". Yang is the
expanding phase - the peak
of the wave; and Yin is the contracting phase -
the trough of the
wave.(Though to talk of waves is a simplification in
itself. The
"waves" of Qi it seems to me would have to be of higher
dimensional order than
ordinary waves) Qi then is "that which is waving";
that which connects and
communicates between Yin and Yang. So ultimately Qi
is the only "real"
or "fundamental" entity in the Universe. Yin and Yang
are secondary since they are
characteristics of the Qi. Expanding/expanded
qi would correspond to the
energetic aspects of the Universe while
contracting/contracted qi
corresponds to the matter aspects of the Universe.
As an aside I sometimes
think that the wave/particle duality of Western
Physics might be understood
in this framework. In an experiment where the
wavicles seem to be
'particles' we are accessing the Yin phase (condensed
energy looks like solid
matter). In other experiments when the energetic
nature of the wavicles is to
the forefront (e.g. interference studies) we
are accessing the Yang phase
(expanded energy looks like 'real' energy)
Leaving that aside and
returning to the Chinese Taiji paradigm; my
understanding of this is
that the *only* thing in the Universe is the
Universe itself ( a non-
dualistic, non-materialist - in the sense that
matter "matters",
completetist as opposed to a fragmentalist view) And that
the ultimate nature of this
"thing"; the Universe is energetic, called Qi
in this paradigm. So WS says
that the Universe is wavy or waving while
Taiji paradigm says that the
Universe is fundamentally Qi and that this is
"what does the
waving" (Yin/Yang).
So from the Taiji
perspective the only "thing" in the Universe; is the
Universe which is entirely
Qi and no "thing" else. However our *experience*
of the Universe is that it
does not appear as an undifferentiated oneness.
We experience; trees, and
rocks, and flowers, and stars, and animals, and
insects, and people, and
load of other "things". That we experience in this
way is held to be the result
of the activity of the Qi; It Waves - peaks
and troughs in Yang and Yin
phases. So Qi is both the substrate of "that
which is" *AND* the
"waving" of the Qi is "informative" (in the information
theory sense of "differences
that *make* a difference). The waves in the Qi
can interfere, both
constructively (additive) and destructively
(subtractive). It is this
interference between the waves in the Qi that
presents the Universe in the
forms in which we perceive it.
An easy way to get a gist of
this idea of interfering waves manifesting
"things" may be
seen on a visit to the sea shore ( alternatively any
substantial body of
water) on a moderately blustery day. On
a calm day we
can see the waves gently rolling onto the shore. As the wave
action
becomes more vigorous the
reflected waves interact with the incoming waves;
this produces interference
between waves and we can seem to see lumps of
water, or shapes, or forms
of masses of water that *appear* to be
independent of the sea. This
is usually a relatively short lived phenomenon
and the "forms"
produced from the sea rapidly fall back again into it.
However if you take a
snapshot you will see what looks like separate
"things"
disconnected from the general mass of the
water. These "things"
are all just water waving and the result of constructive
and destructive
interference between waves.
If such wave phenomena were of more extended
duration whole
classifications of the different shapes produced; "things"
could be developed. However
elaborated such a taxonomy might become and
however sophisticated
theories of relationships and interactions between
these "things"
might become the fundamental reality would still remain that
all of these would only be water
waving.
Occasionally such wave
interactions may produce stable forms that persists.
The most common example is
the whirlpool. It is only "really" organised
water and in a river the
water is continuously being replaced. While the
water that comprises the
whirlpool is continuously changing the whirlpool
itself persists.
So from the Taiji
perspective there is nothing but Qi waving. It is this
waving that produces the
appearance of things and entities; as whirlpools
and other features emerge
from water waving. So the "things" we perceive
are "whirlpools"
in the only thing that exists Universal Qi. It is possible
to find real whirlpools that
also have internal structure in that they may
contain mini whirlpools
within a greater.
In the world of appearances
that we inhabit some "things" are relatively
simple organisationally;
i.e. rocks and minerals, while some things are
much more complex
organisationally; i.e. the biosphere. From the Qi
perspective the former would
be a simple whirlpool while the latter would
be "whirlpools within
whirlpools". This range in orgaisational complexity
traps differing amounts of
Qi. A simple forms contains less Qi than a
complex form. Thus living
things are said to contain more Qi than non
living things. Simple living
forms on the whole would be said to contain
less Qi than more complex
living things.
To summarise:
Only Qi exists.
Qi "waves".
Peaking/Expanding in Yang,
Thoughing/Contracting in Yin.
"Solid matter" is
very Yin - condensed Qi
"Energy" is very Yang
- expanded Qi
Simple (orgainisationally)
entities trap relatively small amounts of Qi -
whether in Yin phase or Yang
phase or some combination of both.
Complex (orgainisationally)
entities trap relatively greater amounts of Qi
- whether in Yin phase or
Yang phase or some combination of both.
Finally in the same way that
we can label stable and persistent structures
observed in water, e.g.
whirlpools. Structures that persist even when the
water that comprises them is
continuously replaced. We can label stable and
persistent structures
observed in the Qi. We can call them rocks, minerals,
i.e. granite, calcite;
plants, animals i.e. rose, cat and people i.e. you
and me.
Since these are considered
to be fundamentally Qi structures it then
becomes possible to talk
about "granite qi", "rose qi", "cat qi",
"human
qi" etc. That is; to
name a particular and persistent organised "knot" or
"whirlpool" of Qi.
Since we find structures within structures we can also
then talk about "heart
qi" and "lung qi" etc. Note that this second order
use of "qi" refers
more to the informational, orgaisational pattern that is
particular and persistent
than the first order "Qi" which is the substrate
or implicit reality of the
Universe. The various "jins" of Taijiquan are
then third order, mind/yi
directed/created, refined organisations of the
second order "human
qi".
Thus while it can now be
seen that it is legitimate, in some senses, to
call "qi" (second
order) "life force" such a usage is in some sense a form
of short hand or abbreviated
summary.
I trust that this will be of
some assistance.
Most Cordially
Old Turtle in Belfast
Peter A Gilligan
Hi Karen
At 20:41 27/01/2003 +0000,
you wrote:
>This tour de force
surely stunned everybody into silence :)
Ooops. That wasn't my
intention. I was trying to be helpful. Though I admit
that it is not a very simple
topic :-))
>I was hoping that
somebody had understood it better than me and had
>entered a discussion,
but it seems I will have to ask my own
>questions.
>Do you remember in high
school or that age when you were presented
>with ideas like Sartre
and existentialism or Jung and the archetypes
>and you read it and
understood the words but were simply not equipped
>to get real perspective
or understanding....That is how I feel here.
>But anyway...
Luckily, or otherwise, for
me both Sartre and Jung did not cross my
intellectual horizon until
university. I've no idea what I might have made
of them in high school. Even
now I find Jung's book Synchronicity a
troublesome read.
> When it was mentioned that your
understanding of Qi was as a
>template, my question
would have been; what is the stuff that
we use
>the template on, but it
seems to me now that you say that Qi is 'the
>stuff'. 'Strucures' are
interference in the Qi, short or longlived.
>But what causes the
interference?
Qi is the medium, in the
sense that in this paradigm qi is the *only*
"thing" that
exists. However it is also in the nature of qi to move. This
movement is characterised as
having two phases/directions; Yin & Yang. Thus
the medium is inherently
dynamic. This dynamism is "informative" in an
information theory sense. So
the Qi is at the same time both the carrier
and the information (which
is modulations in the carrier). I'm not entirely
sure that causation is
relevant in this paradigm. For that matter, I and
others have reservations
about "causality" in *any* paradigm. May I quote
Hubert M. Blalock Jr. from
"Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Reasearch"
1961 U of Nth Carolina Press,
Lib. Cong. Cat. Crd No. 64-22534 p5
CAUSAL THINKING, THEORY AND
OPERATIONALISM
The problem of causality is
part of the much larger question of the nature
of the scientific method
and, in particular, the problem of the
relationship between theory
and research. There appears to be an inherent
gap between the languages of
theory and research which can never be bridged
in a completely satisfactory
way. One thinks in terms of a theoretical
language that contains
notions such as causes, forces, systems and
properties. But one's tests
are made in terms of covariations, operations,
and pointer readings.
Although a concept such as "mass" may be conceived of
theoretically or
metaphysically as a property, this is only a pious
opinion, in Eddington's words,
that "mass" as property is equivalent to
"mass" as inferred
from pointer readings." (Arthur S. Eddington, The
Nature of the Physical
World (New York: The Macmillan Co.
1933) pp 251 -55)
The extreme empiricist or
operationalist attack on theory has been made and
answered. There is no need
to review this controversy except to mention
that many of the objections
to causal thinking involve the same types of
issues. We shall take the
commonly accepted position that science contains
two distinct languages or
ways of defining concepts, which will be referred
to as the theoretical and
operational languages. There appears to be no
purely logical way of
bridging the gap between these languages. Concepts in
the one language are
associated with those in the other merely by
convention or agreement
among scientists.
The empiricist criticism of
certain types of theoretical thinking contained
valid arguments, but went
too far. It had made us aware, however, that it
is by no means a simple
matter to develop theories that are directly or
even indirectly testable,
Causal thinking has also come under the attack of
logical positivisits,
operationalists, and other types of empiricist
philosophers. According to
Mario Bunge, "The causal principle fell into
disrepute during the first
half of our century [he was writting in the 20th
cent.] as an effect of two
independently acting causes: the criticisms of
the empiricist philosophers
and the growing use in science and technology
of statistical ideas and
methods." (Mario Bunge, "Causality, Chance and
Law" American Scientist XLIX (December, 1961)
p432)
{end of quote. emphasis in
the original [ ] mine}
AFAIAC the Tai Chi paradigm
is empricist and as such does not consider
causality. My understanding
is that it only contains empirical data such as
covariations, operations and
pointer readings, as Blalock describes above.
These observations are then
reduced, or distilled, to Taiji as the
underlying source, or
reality, behind the everyday world of appearances. WS
accepts the necessity of the
two distinct languages; theoretical and
operational, the Taiji
paradigm avoids this problem (or attempts to avoid
this problem) by using only
the one operational language.
>My second question is
much less clear for me. You talk about 'cat qi'
>and 'human qi' . Is
human qi a person? that means: is human qi=
>human?
"Human qi" does
equal human in the sense that humans as a species can be
taxonomically discriminated
from other species. However generic "human qi"
does not equal a person any
more than Homo sapiens sapientis as a
biological species name
equals an *individual* person. To draw a parallel
with contemporary Western
science; "human qi" is to the "human genome" as
"mouse qi" is to
the "mouse genome". Further detailing is required to
specify an *individual*;
"human" or "mouse".
> Something is rattling me here, that the
energy, waves in this
>interference structure
used to make the person, is the person. I am
>not talking about soul
or something like that, it is something in the
>logic that is bugging
me.
Since "things"
(humans, mice, stars, flowers, etc) are all *ultimately*
"knots" or
"whirlpools" in the qi, types or classes of these "knots"
or
"whirlpools" may
be identified which correspond to the "things" we
experience. Humans in
general are the results of "knots" or "whirlpools" of
the "human qi"
configuration. Individual humans, persons, in general
conform to the generic
"human qi" template with unique internal variation.
Should this variation be such
that the "human qi" template is excessively
disturbed then that
individual is non viable.
In WS terms; all humans fall
within the human genome. Variations beyond set
limits (boundary conditions)
result in non viable individuals. As far as I
can see the
"logic" remains the same.
>So when you have the
time I would like if you could make me
>understand better. And
in the meantime I might have found some
>clearer questions :)
I hope that this will aid
your understanding. And I look forward to further
questions at you leisure.
Most Cordially
Peter A Gilligan
Hi Richard,
At 06:39 04/02/2003 -0800,
you wrote:
>Peter, are you saying
that Chinese language does not
>*permit* the construct
of causailty?
>or were your remarks
limited to the Qi theory?
It is not so much that the
Chinese language does not "permit" causal
language rather that causal
language is not "preferred" nor is it the
default form of linguistic
expression. One may translate literally from,
say English, to Chinese;
however if one does this the Chinese audience may
be stuck by the
"strangeness" and peculiarity of your utterance.
Specifically within Chinese
theoretical discourse the use of causal
language is not
"normal".
Consider two expressions
from Taijiquan:
xu1ling2ding3jin4 Yang Cheng
Fu's first point from his Ten Essential
Points. Which is typically
translated as something like; "A light and
sensitive energy is placed
on the head top". While this is a recognisable
English sentence it IMV
distorts the original more than somewhat.
Xu1 empty, hollow, void
Ling2 neck, to prop up
ding3 the crown of the head
jin4 power, energy
To me xu1ling2 offers the
idea of something like the cardboard tube inside
a roll of toilet paper or
kitchen roll - a hollow upright tube. Then ding3,
the crown of the head, is
that which is so supported. And jin4 -
energy/power is
"entailed" or "within" the hollowness. Note the virtual
absence of a recognisable
verb.
Alternatively;
bai2he4liang4qi4 which is
conventionally translated as; "White Crane
spreads its wings".
Again the English translation conforms more to the
rules of the English
language than the original.
Bai2 white, pure, clear
He4 crane (bird)
Liang4 Bright,clear,
luminous, shining. Firm (also the possibility of a pun
with liang3 - pair, couple
of, two of , or liang2 cool)
qi4 wing (of a bird)
To me this says something
like Bai2He4 - White Crane. Liang4qi4 bright,
clear, shining, firm wing
(with punning overtones of "two of" and "cool".
In the first pair of
characters the White Crane is introduced, and of
course as a bird it has
wings. However that it has wings is emphasised by
the second pair of
characters so the total is not merely any old White
Crane but a White Crane with
*wings*. The *wings* are emphasised. If you
like the wings are made
prominent and in that way "displayed"-
As Andrea Falk, the
xingyiquan teacher and Chinese linguist has written;
"What causes movement
is not necessarily separate from the movement itself
or from what moves. This is
one reason why descriptive passages sometimes
seem circular to Western
logic. Linguistically, these terms are *not* (my
emphasis) hazy in the
Chinese language, which does not need to make
distinctions which are
necessary in English. At the surface level of
expression, the Chinese
language can use the same word as a verb, noun, or
adjective, so naturally the
"thing" being described could be active,
matter, or a property."
>The former I find very
hard to believe. It would seem
>to be a huge
intellectual handicap (from my western
>perspective, of course).
Certain Western thinkers
have suggested that belief in the "causal
principle" in the West
as if it was *true* rather than an intellectual
construct is a primary
intellectual handicap to all Western thinking,
science and technology.
Hope this clarifies
Cordially
Peter A Gilligan
Hi David L
At 09:02 04/02/2003 -0600,
David L. wrote:
>I was very fortunate to
be taught by a Chinese person that had both TCC
>skills and understanding
and WS / W. Engineering skills and understanding,
>through repeated
experience of jin and jin making coupled with hybrid
>concepts slowly a map
started accreting for me.
Luck you :-)) I had to apply
my own understanding of WS and Western
Philosophy more or less
alone.
>We (this generation of
TCC players in the West) have the difficult task of
>not just learning a high
skill art but creating the fundamental language
>bits and 'maps' that
allow these to be understood & communicated in OUR
>world. In some ways we
are a transitional generation that will never repeat,
>since by being what we
are we destroy the need for being what we are.
This is a *very* important
point IMV. I regard myself as something of a
"bridge" between
the two world views. I have submitted myself to
traditional Chinese instruction
so that I may gain "understanding" within
the Chinese framework. Since
I am a Westerner educated in the Western
classical tradition I then
attempt to express the "understanding" so gained
as the Westerner that I am.
To the extent that I am successful I hope to
both make myself redundant
and to assist in the creation of suitable
western language to describe
and exchange and transmit my limited
understanding.
>Peng and Sung and Yao
and Qua and Chi and Yi and ... can be better grasped
>in English since we've
added some mental territory where they can be mapped
>East and West.
>
> > I am not trying to
> > insult anybody or
anything, but quite frankly I think most of it is
> > quite silly.
>
>I had a long time
laughing at the silly natives in the good old USA, until I
>went native :-}
>
> > The treatment for
TB,
>
>Works ... and very
important to CMC since he was a practicing TCM doctor,
>suffered from and was cured of by TCC, and had a hard time
with WS type of
>medicine (which from TCM
POV is rather barbaric). For better grasp of this
>subject read Dr. Zee in
his works about Wu style & medical
effects etc.
Incidentally the WHO
recognises the efficacy of Taijiquan as a treatment
for TB and lists this
alongside the WS antibiotic treatment.
Cordially
Peter A Gilligan
Hi,
the concept of qi is
uniquely East Asian, and contrary to popular
belief that misconstrues it,
in nearly 100% cases, as something that's
"the same" or
"about the same" as pneuma, prana, vital force, energy
and so on, it is nothing of
the kind. Both simpler and more
fundamental, this is, first
and foremost, a nondualistic idea with no
Indo-European
counterpart. To grasp what qi really
means might take a
number of years and a
radical transformation of one's thinking, not
just a tranlation...
Qi is the potential and
actualization of change simultaneously, and
cause-effect relationships
of any kind are not part of how it works,
since it is something that
is present before, during and after
transformation. The kind of change it is involved in is
"actualization,"
"something becoming what it is meant to be," as in an
interaction between the qi
of a grain and the qi of the earth, heaven,
sun and rain via "gan
ying," resonance, the method whereby qi
manifests its presence and
not so much "causes" as "can't not be part
of," in the case of a
grain, its becoming what it potentially,
inherently, already is --
and ONLY this, not "something" or
"whatever." Here's Chuang Tsu's take:
"The great cloud
belches out qi and its name is wind. So
long as it
does not come forth nothing
happens, but when it does, the ten
thousand hollows begin
crying wildly... Blowing on the ten
thousand
things in a different way,
so each can be itself."
That's qi... the deepest insight of Chinese civilization.
Elena
Hi Mario,
> so i'm not sure if ur
saying, that each culture adds it's own spice /
> version of explaining
what this phenomena is.
No, I'm saying that what
other cultures have come up with as their
"proprietary"
world view is distinctly different from what the Chinese
civilization (and/or its
earlier sources) has come up with. I am
saying that all
Indo-European traditions, ancient to modern, do have
things in common in their
conceptual thought, and they call them
various things (like pneuma
or vital force or energy, e.g.), and that
most people tackling qi
mistake those cosy familiar notions of their
own cultural tradition (or
of one close enough in its underlying
conceptual fundamentals) for
a version of what the Chinese mean when
they say qi,
and that one would have to radically transform one's thinking in
order to realize that
there's a lot more similarities between, e.g.,
Christianity and Hinduism
than between Hinduism and Taoism, and
there's a helluva lot more
simiarities between, say, "soul" and
"prana" than
between "prana" and "qi."
I'm saying that the concept of
qi is uniquely different,
and only superficial and erroneous takes on
it equate it to any and all
by-products of a dualistic matter-energy
split of Indo-European
thought, such as prana, pneuma, vital force,
soul, spirit, energy, or
some such.
> or are u saying, that
qi and prana are different!
Yes, absolutely different. Prana presupposes the existence of a
dichotomy between matter and
energy, the existence of matter as
separate from energy, the
existence of matter and energy as different
things, a world view the
Chinese never had.
> if so, can you tell me,
the difference between, prana and qi,
as you
> understand it !
Unlike prana, qi is not
something that "vitalizes" something otherwise
"inert." Qi is as much an attribute of a mountain or
a lake as it is
of a man or a dog. The juxtaposition of spirit and matter --
the
mainstay of Indo-European
thought in general that's behind the concept
of prana -- is not part of
the Chinese conceptual thought pertaining
to the phenomenon of qi.
Elena
Ho Gary,
I'll try to reply in depth
when I have the time, a quickie for now:
you are right, it is indeed
my brevity that accounts for "Chinese"
being used (albeit with due
caveats where I had the prudence to insert
them) by me as a shortcut to
what I really mean:
"classical Chinese
daoist and proto-daoist concepts that constitute
the uniquely integrated
philosophical and experiential basis of a
worldview and,
simultaneously, lifestyle, of a practitioner and,
simultaneously, theorist of
philosophical and, simultaneously,
empirical sciences and arts
rooted in the classical works of daoist
thought and, simultaneously,
empirical practices organically
intertwined with same in
this particular approach to reality."
And, yes, you are absolutely
correct in asserting that an "average
Chinese" today neither
thinks the thoughts nor talks the talk nor
walks the walk... for reasons too numerous and too historic
for a
non-historian to tackle in
an email. But the difference between
what
an "average modern
Chinese" knows and what an "average" Chinese
classic like the I Ching or
the Nei Jing knows is not the same as
between what an
"average American" knows and what an "average European
classic" knows, in that
in the case of the former, both exist today as
practices, not just
"dao of the mouth," and anyone who wants to "get
to the source" of any
"classical daoist" concept (like yin and yang
and qi, e.g.) CAN,
regardless of whether she is ethnically Chinese or
not. Whereas anyone who would like to live -- not
just think -- like
a Buddha or a Christ or an
Arjuna wouldn't know where to start...
So, to your other question
-- whether qi is something that's "Chinese
only" or universal --
of course it is universal, but it's "classical
Chinese sources only"
that give one access to the best way to tackle
what exists unnoticed and
unused (sic!) for everybody else. Hence
my
"Chinese"
shorthand for something that is, of course, not "Chinese
only" and not
"Chinese modern ethnic" but, rather, "classical
Chinese-daoist in its origin
and recognizable as such today as
something that is distinct
and different from anything originally
non-Chinese
non-daoist," quite unlike anything Hindu or Russian or
Catholic or Belgian.
Best wishes,
Elena